Wiley-Letter(2) — original pdf
Backup
Rodriguez, Lisa From: Sent: To: Subject: HPD ICRC Commissioners Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:33 PM HPD ICRC Commissionsers DL FW: ICRC citizen input on: (1) District 9, and border transitions with Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10 From: Philip Wiley Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:33:08 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik To: HPD ICRC Commissioners <ICRC.Commissioners@austintexas.gov> Subject: ICRC citizen input on: (1) District 9, and border transitions with Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10 > *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Commissioners, The character of District 9 is defined by being the compact and connected city center of Austin At the core dense building forms, mixed use, quality and variety of transit options. Around that core are transition areas to lower density uses and districts. From a redistricting perspective, D9 plays a unique role of sharing borders with 3 of the 4 minority opportunity districts, and as Austin evolves D9 has the role and responsibility of absorbing newly densified areas that no longer contribute to minority district goals, which may include potential border changes described below. Census ‐ Results: D9 population grew faster than Austin. It appears D9 census results will show >99,000 residents, so it has more people than the average district size of 96,100. As it appears a material number of students were missed in the census count, D9 is unlikely to be targeted for >96,100 residents, but could be a candidate for <96,1000 residents because of the undercount. Outside census data, it also appears there will be ongoing disproportionate city center growth due to many development projects in various stages of completion and planning. All three underlined points may contribute to the Commission reducing the D9 land mass this cycle. Transition D1 to D9 (1) Downtown is somewhat unique in the formality of it's neighborhood plan, and it is very much a neighborhood to the 15,000 and growing fast who live here. The northeast quadrant was put in D1 last round. Ora Houston, speaking at the D1 ICRC session, asked that I‐35 become the new D1/D9 border. The first residential tower in that area is nearing completion, more are coming, and they will not likely support minority district racial mix goals. Suggestion: move precinct #325 from D1 to D9. CM Houston's testimony starts at the 25:17 minute mark here: https://austintx.new.swagit.com/videos/130488 (2) UT's LBJ School was put in D1 to recognize his contributions, and Ora Houston also asked that the school continue to be. If the Commission again supports that request, then Suggestion: please consider splitting precinct #206 in a way that just includes LBJ and avoids breaking up the student body. The number of students affected in theory is a small % but it does create confusion and complicates student groups and the Daily Texan's efforts to educate voters on local races that are not top of mind. 1 (3) Precinct 133 (tract 21.06) is the odd one that the people who map precincts showed you is divided between D1, D4, D9 ‐ it's located due north of Mueller. The Black population declined from 16.1% to 10.9%, and Hispanic from 40.7% to 33.7%, so Suggestion: evaluate moving more (or all) precinct 133 blocks from D1/D4 to D9 Transition D3 to D9 (4) The South River City Citizens (SRCC http://www.srccatx.org/area‐map/ ) has asked that their district borders be extended to Ben White. Noteworthy, they did not ask that it be done as part of District 9, many people south of the river don't think they belong in a district that extends north of the lake, and vice versa. In order to support the SRCC request two precincts would need to be added that are in D3 today, including #442. The corresponding census tract 23.22 shows the Hispanic portion of the area increased from 47.7% to 51.3%, so they are not likely a candidate to move out of a Hispanic minority opportunity district; however: (5) Just east of SRCC along the "Lakeshore" area has grown tremendously while seeing a reduction of Hispanic residents in census tract 23.04 from 67.8% to 21.2%. As precinct #429 is already shared between D3 and D9, Suggestion: evaluate moving more of precinct #429 from D3 to D9 (or whatever district SRCC ends up being part of) (6) The area east of I‐35 south of 7th, north of Cesar Chavez has experienced a dramatic transformation that extends several blocks from the highway, with much more coming with Plaza Saltillo. Interesting that the area closer to the water has been more resilient, and unfortunately this is another case where the census precincts line up better with the community than the precinct borders. As far as census tract 9.02 has gone from 72.1% Hispanic to 36.8% while growing dramatically on the western half, Suggestion: evaluate extending D9 border east of I‐35 on the north half of precinct 438.. Unfortunately this is not a typo, so might be a good time to provide links to data sources: https://data.statesman.com/census/total‐population/total‐housing‐units‐ change/census tract 902 travis county texas/140‐48453000902/ http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=205562 Transition D4 to D9 (7) Repeating from above (3) as it also applies to D4.. Precinct 133 (tract 21.06) is the odd one that the people who map precincts showed you is divided between D1, D4, D9 ‐ it's located due north of Mueller. The Black population declined from 16.1% to 10.9%, and Hispanic from 40.7% to 33.7%, so Suggestion: evaluate moving more (or all) precinct 133 blocks from D1/D4 to D9 If D9 needs to shrink in land mass, yet also needs to absorb areas no longer appropriate for minority districts, then D9 also has to move current precincts to other districts. Transition D9 to D5 (8) The south west corner of D9 ‐ the Bouldin neighborhood ‐ has less in common with D9 than any other area, and as it is not linked with SRCC would seem the highest priority to move into D5 where it more logically fits anyway. Suggestion: in priority sequence move from D9 to D5 precincts #424, #437, and #341. (census tracts 13.12 and 13.11). This is the area between South Lamar (SoLa) and South Congress (SoCo) ; the neighborhood is not affiliated with SRCC as Congress is the line of division. Transition D9 to D10 (9) The section west of Lamar, and west of Pease Park (which extends from 15th Street to 31st) has a major road and more importantly major green space separating them from the rest of D9. It's a low density single family area that is aligned by school district, built environment, and socio economic factors much more with D10. Suggestion: move D9 section north of 15th and west of Lamar to D10 (precinct 313? Sorry ‐ it is a confusing squiggly line). Map of the park here: https://peasepark.org/vision‐plan 2 FYI ‐ here is my spreadsheet model that led to the conclusion D9 has at least 99,000 residents. Areas where precincts and census tracts borders don't line up were omitted, and a very conservative growth rate was assumed for them as a "plug". Philip Wiley Downtown resident, 78701. D9. Census Tract 2010 District 9 Triangle South Hyde (of 45th) NE Hyde NW Hyde West of Mueller Mueller‐East Mueller‐West NE of Campus North Campus UT UNO ‐ NW UNO ‐ NE UNO ‐ SW UNO ‐ SE DT ‐ North (15th‐MLK) DT ‐ Middle (6th‐15th) DT ‐ SW (of Congress) DT ‐ SE (w/ Rainey) DT‐Seaholm+Clarksville North SoLa/SoCo South SoLa/SoCo W Travis Heights E Travis Heights East of I‐35 1546 4939 3044 3223 1707 538 2159 3574 4518 9207 3315 4478 4190 2306 1339 1748 1981 1783 3836 965 4523 2981 2499 1490 64.1% 6.2% 0.8% 17.1% 7.9% 401.5% 159.5% 25.3% ‐0.6% ‐6.8% 40.1% 11.9% 1.9% 129.2% 5.4% 29.2% 102.6% 87.3% 60.9% 71.6% 1.1% ‐3.5% 2.1% ‐6.6% 27.6% 5.0% 25.6% 21.7% 991 306 24 550 134 2160 3443 903 ‐28 ‐627 1330 534 78 2980 72 510 2032 1556 2337 691 52 ‐105 53 ‐99 19877 350 20227 171500 2.03 3.02 3.04 3.05 3.07 3.08 3.09 4.01 5 6.01 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 7 11.01 11.02 11.03 12 13.11 13.12 14.01 14.02 14.03 2020 2537 5245 3068 3773 1841 2698 5602 4477 4490 8580 4645 5012 4268 5286 1411 2258 4013 3339 6173 1656 4575 2876 2552 1391 3 Subtotal Plug Total 91766 7350 99116 71889 7000 78889 961000 789500 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 4